LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  June 2011

DATETIME June 2011

Subject:

Re: On the usefulness of x

From:

Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:57:34 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (101 lines)

You want 195x to mean "the 1950s"?  (Rather than the meaning I had thought
we decided on.)

Since you are the only one (as far as I know) who cares about the x
notation, it's fine with me. 

--Ray




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] On the usefulness of x
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:57:19 -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote
> > > {1950..1959} means the set (all of) dates 1959 through 1959. It is
> > > an array of dates expressed with a precision of year.
> > > The expression 195x, by contrast, is neither an array nor an
> > > expression with a precision of year but a date with a precision of
> 10 years.
> >
> > Are you perhaps confusing 'x' with 'u'?
> 
> No. The expression 195u has a precision of year. It is used to express
> a date in year precision where the year, however, is not (yet) known.
> The expression, by contast, 195x is of decade precision (10 years) and
> does not express any uncertainty. The expression, for example, "The
> journal was published in 195u" I would take to imply that it was
> published in some year in the 1950s but its uncertain, at this time,
> which. The expression, by contrast, "The journal was published 195x" I
> would take to mean that the said journal was published in at least one
> of the years in the 1950s.
> 195u -----------> 1 year in the range 1950 to 1959. The date is
> expressed with precision of year.
> 195x -----------> 1 or MORE years in the range 1950 to 1959 expressed
> with the precision of decade.
> 
> >
> > 199u means "one of the years 1990, 1991, 1992, etc."
> > 199x is supposed to mean "ALL of the years 1990, 1991, 1992, etc."
> 
> That is the difference in our views and why I think "x" is needed and
> can't be  replaced by {..} expressions. {1950..1959) can mean ALL of
> the years since its an expression of an array of dates with an implicit
> measurement precision of year.
> If one agrees that the expression "195x" has a precision of decade than
> it can't be ALL since that would entail a readability (precision) of
> year.
> The contruct 'x' (from right to left) I took to represent the
> expressions "1950s", 18th Century etc.
> The expression 195x (1950s) is, I think, like reading a short
> thermometer with ticks every 10 degrees. Its hard to talk about where,
> for example, 33 degrees is..  its not readable to degree.
> Its, again, like 1999. That expression does not mean "all" days, hours,
> minutes or .. If I say that a journal was published in 1999 I mean that
> at least one issue (perhaps more) was published in 1999 but not that an
> issue was published every second. "1999" means one or more and not ALL.
> The expression "1999" has a precision of year so I can't read precisely
> month, day, hour, minute, second ...
> 
> >
> > The example cited is someone listing years of publication. For
> example
> > for
> a
> > book published in 1992, 1996, and 1998 you could list its years of
> > publication as {1992, 1996, 1998}.
> >
> > But say it was published in 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
> > 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, and 2004.
> >
> > You could list its years of publication as {1988, 199x, 2002, 2004}.
> >
> > This is what we decided many months ago.
> 
> I did not decide this :-)
> I was always, I think, speaking of precision. Wildcards never really
> interested me except in queries. That is why I see 195x as being
> something to implement (well its been implemented already by me as I
> have interpreted
> it) but not 1x59. I can see some interesting questions expressable with
> wildcards such as "turn of the century", "mid century" etc. but see
> them on the side of query and less on the side of date representation
> for storage--- I would implement these, just as generalized 'u', in the
> query engine (state
> machine) and not in my indexer (data storage model).
> 
> >
> > --Ray
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> http://www.nonmonotonic.net
> Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager